high_tea wrote:Now mandatory helmets in motor vehicles I don't mind. Bring it on. You won't hear a peep out of me. Anyone who complains about freedom will get the same answer from me - it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

MHL for motor vehicles would seriously help with safety. There is a 0.00000000 (recurring) chance of it getting up. People just won't have it. Despite what you think, having to put a helmet on in the car would result in a political revolution.

You may well be right, but that would be a strong contender for my personal "Stupidest revolution ever" award. I've got a good slogan for it, though: "Give me convenience or give me death". The Dead Kennedys would probably do it pretty cheap...

high_tea wrote:Well now, I don't know exactly which laws you're referring to, because if you consider that level of imposition excessive, there are so very many to choose from. Sure, you could do away with them all, but that sounds pretty revolutionary to me

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little. We don't appreciate what we have so we are so willing to let it get taken away. (Compared to most countries in the world we are free and often envied for our freedom. Compared to most free democracies we are heavily regulated and controlled.

I'm not going to start a lesson here but it seems so very sad that you see a need for a government to impose their will on individual decisions that only should be a concern of the individual.

high_tea wrote:Now mandatory helmets in motor vehicles I don't mind. Bring it on. You won't hear a peep out of me. Anyone who complains about freedom will get the same answer from me - it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

MHL for motor vehicles would seriously help with safety. There is a 0.00000000 (recurring) chance of it getting up. People just won't have it. Despite what you think, having to put a helmet on in the car would result in a political revolution.

You may well be right, but that would be a strong contender for my personal "Stupidest revolution ever" award. I've got a good slogan for it, though: "Give me convenience or give me death". The Dead Kennedys would probably do it pretty cheap...

Actually, i consider the mhl a stupid revolution.And that slogan would work wonders for a repeal mhl slogan...

"Give me convenience or give me death"

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

high_tea wrote:Well now, I don't know exactly which laws you're referring to, because if you consider that level of imposition excessive, there are so very many to choose from. Sure, you could do away with them all, but that sounds pretty revolutionary to me

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little. We don't appreciate what we have so we are so willing to let it get taken away. (Compared to most countries in the world we are free and often envied for our freedom. Compared to most free democracies we are heavily regulated and controlled.

I'm not going to start a lesson here but it seems so very sad that you see a need for a government to impose their will on individual decisions that only should be a concern of the individual.

Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

human909 wrote:It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little. We don't appreciate what we have so we are so willing to let it get taken away. (Compared to most countries in the world we are free and often envied for our freedom. Compared to most free democracies we are heavily regulated and controlled.

You are living in Australia and yet you complain about freedom. I take it you support anarchism then? Haha

You see MHL as a violation of your human rights and right to freedom. First world problems..

DavidS wrote:Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

...and it goes both ways, helmets make your head warmer in winter. What's your point?

I highly doubt that non cyclists will consider to cycle when it is 39 degrees whether you have to wear a helmet or not

For all the guys talking about MHL for cars are you saying that you would support MHL for bikes if we had MHL for cars? How did we even get to helmet use in cars... Haha

Last edited by Philipthelam on Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DavidS wrote:Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

...and it goes both ways, helmets make your head warmer in winter. What's your point?

I highly doubt that non cyclists will consider to cycle when it is 39 degrees whether you have to wear a helmet or not

really ??

Without a mhl, we could , I dont know choose ?Mayby choose to wear it in winter,cause it makes us warmer...Choose not to wear it while its hot, cause its terrible..Its so terrible, I prefer walking without a helmet, then riding with a helmet.

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

I have heard people comment about the image of cycling. I bet this topic and thread damages cycling more than MHL and Lycra. Cyclists arguing over helmet laws has become a joke among non cyclists.

BTW There is still one question which I have posted numerous times in this thread which either

1. No one has seen it 2. No one has been bothered to answer it3. No one knows the answer to it

If you want to see the question then go find it yourself..

After 200 pages you really have to ask what the purpose of this thread is. Clearly this has not been a discussion. In a discussion people are meant to be open to new ideas. But in fact It has just been the same stubborn old men who have been camping here. The men who who want to live in the past, in their own little golden time and feel better by whinging here. The same arguments are put forth and are rebutted by the same rebuttals... This thread has just been going around in circles. It's going nowhere. What's the point.

I hope to not look at this thread again. Incites too much hatred. Lets hope curiosity doesn't get the better of me.

il padrone wrote:Actually..... yes! That is all a part of our freedom. I get to make my own mistakes, rather than have someone else say what mistakes I should and should not be making.

i have a lot of sympathy for that. but as i've consistently said, the convoluted arguments trying to prove not wearing a helmet is actually a really good idea are frequently misguided and don't help. the simple and more effective argument is - it's my head and i can crack it open if i want (and i'm not judging, i've given it a good go a few times).

Philipthelam wrote: The same arguments are put forth and are rebutted by the same rebuttals... This thread has just been going around in circles. It's going nowhere. What's the point.

You're more than welcome to go and take some time-out. No-one is making you read it.

Take a month or two out - the thread will still be here

As for the point - well if people are talking about the issue, if non-cyclists are aware of the issue that is all a good thing. People questioning an ill-thought out rule is far better than people who blithely accept it. That approach is how this crazy rule got through in the first place. "When good men do nothing...." and all that.

Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

il padrone wrote:Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.

Philipthelam wrote:For all the guys talking about MHL for cars are you saying that you would support MHL for bikes if we had MHL for cars? How did we even get to helmet use in cars... Haha

Because it's a prime example of how bad laws are formed in light of evidence to the contrary. As was said earlier, any attempt to enact MMHL would be political suicide. It's a damn sight easier to target minorities.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

DavidS wrote:Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

That's the point isn't it. 99% of the people that ride in Australia now don't mind wearing helmets, hence the bias on sites like this. Most people who don't ride because they don't like helmets don't ride... and there is an even more remote chance of them joining a cycling forum.

il padrone wrote:Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.

You can count me in with that group.

Same here. I was also made aware of things I'd not though of myself, like the abnormalization of cycling and the added perception of danger.

human909 wrote:It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little.

including the freedom to exercise poor judgment and make mistakes.

This just crystallises why I don't think you get it Jules.

Are you exposed to the lowest common denominator? Have you made serious mistakes in the past? I talk to people regularly wanting to go into debts that they should not be entertaining. I talk to people who can't find consistent work yet want to borrow thousands and pay interest despite the many 24 month interest free deals out there. I have spoken to fat people who can't seem to lose the weight. I know some who are drinking themselves to an early grave. I know others that are smoking despite all the issues. I have spoken to people wanting to borrow money for cars despite the fact that they can't survive outside of Government housing.

The freedom to make mistakes, even to our detriment, is part of our society in Australia. We even subsidise these people, at an expense which accounts for half of your taxes. Centrelink and Medicare are the biggest costs to our country. Regardless of what your opinion is about socialised welfare, that is what our nation does. For decades now.

Given that socialised safety net approach, it is disingenuous to imply that our country's values are incompatible with the freedom to wear a helmet. We're spending more than half our taxes to prop up the people who make mistakes and have incredibly poor judgment.

Xplora wrote: This just crystallises why I don't think you get it Jules.

no, i really do get it. i work in policy, i have a grasp of these concepts.

Xplora wrote:Given that socialised safety net approach, it is disingenuous to imply that our country's values are incompatible with the freedom to wear a helmet. We're spending more than half our taxes to prop up the people who make mistakes and have incredibly poor judgment.

this is correct, and it's also the problem. people want the govt to subsidise their vices and mistakes. that is a bad idea - look at societies which self-learned to rely heavily on social services - particularly those in southern europe. it seemed good for a few decades, but the truth has been hammered home now - it doesn't work.

now MHLs are only loosely linked to that issue and i wouldn't suggest repealing that law would send us broke. but in principle, it annoys me that people feel entitled to burden society with the potential cost of exercising their freedom. that's not really freedom at all.

jules21 wrote:but in principle, it annoys me that people feel entitled to burden society with the potential cost of exercising their freedom. that's not really freedom at all.

Taking this principle as the basis, I hope you are campaigning for the total removal of Medicare funding for all those smokers who chose to smoke and now face heart-lung transplants.... all those obese people who chose their overloaded diet and are going in for stomache stapling.... all those people who drive drunk or at speed and need emergency treatment....

It's really shocking that we should have institutions and schemes in society that care for the well-being and good health of our citizens, eh?

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

il padrone wrote:It's really shocking that we should have institutions and schemes in society that care for the well-being and good health of our citizens, eh?

the issue isn't about denying them care - that should be a right - rather, who pays? is allowing people to make poor choices affecting their health and promising to ensure they won't be out-of-pocket really "care(ing) for the(ir) well-being and good health"? or is it just the easy way out?

if you want to smoke, drink or do anything that doesn't harm your neighbour - my view is, go for it. but the best system would allow for private health insurers to offer policies with premiums set by accounting for the associated risk. if their data really showed cycling without a helmet was, in overall terms, better for your health - then you could expect a discount.